Quadro NVS 510M vs Radeon Pro W5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 with Quadro NVS 510M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700 outperforms NVS 510M by a whopping 5979% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 160 | 1252 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.86 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.88 | 1.24 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | G71 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 19 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 21 August 2006 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1243 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1930 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.9 | 10.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.893 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 24 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 305 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 19.2 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 5x mini-DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.65 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 19 November 2019 | 21 August 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 35 Watt |
Pro W5700 has a 5978.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 510M, on the other hand, has 485.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
